Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale Form-0 (ATDP, ATDP-0)

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale Form-0 (ATDP-0), developed by Harold E. Yuker, J. Richard Block, and William J. Campbell in 1960 at Abilities, Inc., represents a foundational landmark in rehabilitation psychology and psychometric measurement. The instrument was engineered to assess generalized societal, behavioral, and cognitive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities as a unified demographic group, rather than focusing on idiosyncratic reactions to discrete physical, sensory, or intellectual impairments. Comprising 20 items presented in a 6-point Likert-type format ranging from -3 (“I disagree very much”) to +3 (“I agree very much”), the ATDP Form-0 operationalizes the core theoretical postulate that non-disabled individuals perceive disabled persons along a continuum anchored at one pole by perceived difference, inferiority, and specialized segregation, and at the opposing pole by perceived similarity, egalitarian integration, and common human competence.

Although the initial conceptual design partitioned the 20 items into two equal domains—perceived Characteristics of disabled individuals (10 items) and social Treatment of disabled individuals (10 items)—subsequent psychometric investigations and factorial evaluations systematically failed to substantiate this two-dimensional taxonomy, demonstrating instead that the ATDP Form-0 predominantly functions as a unidimensional composite index of general attitude. Psychometric evaluations have documented robust reliability estimates, with split-half equivalence coefficients spanning .75 to .85, test-retest stability coefficients showing a median of .73, and a standard error of measurement of 6.45. Construct and criterion validity have been substantiated across clinical, university, and community cohorts through demonstrable correlations with measures of authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, prejudice, and intergroup contact, as well as via advanced ordering-theoretic analyses confirming nonlinear, hierarchical structures among items. The ATDP Form-0 continues to serve as an indispensable historical and practical benchmark for evaluating educational interventions, professional training programs, and structural stigma reduction efforts.

2. Keywords

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale, ATDP Form-0, Harold E. Yuker, rehabilitation psychology, disability attitudes, psychometrics, stigma measurement, social distance, scale validation, Likert scaling

3. Authors

The Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale Form-0 was formulated, operationalized, and standardized by a collaborative research team based at the Human Resources Center of Abilities, Inc. (Albertson, New York):

• Harold E. Yuker, Ph.D.: Principal investigator, pioneering social psychologist, and longtime professor and Provost at Hofstra University. Yuker lived with cerebral palsy and dedicated his academic career to empirical investigations into disability attitudes, prejudice, and societal integration.
• J. Richard Block, Ph.D.: Co-author, psychometrician, and Professor of Psychology at Hofstra University, whose research focused on industrial-organizational measurement, behavioral statistics, and scale construction methodology.
• William J. Campbell, Ph.D.: Co-author and clinical-research psychologist at the Human Resources Foundation, Abilities, Inc., investigating vocational rehabilitation outcomes, physical medicine adjustments, and social perception.

Institutional Origin: Human Resources Center, Research and Training Institute, Abilities, Inc., Albertson, Long Island, New York, United States.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the ATDP Form-0 is to provide an objective, standardized, and quantitatively rigorous metric for assessing attitudes toward disabled people as an aggregate group. Prior to the creation of the ATDP in 1960, prevailing efforts within psychology and medicine relied predominantly on anecdotal qualitative impressions, ad hoc non-standardized surveys, or diagnostic assessments restricted to singular, highly visible conditions such as blindness, limb amputation, or poliomyelitis. Consequently, empirical research lacked a unified instrument capable of capturing the universalized psychological constructs of prejudice, paternalism, marginalization, and perceived distinction that crosscut diagnostic classifications.

The scale was developed to meet multiple clinical, academic, and socio-political objectives:

• Quantifying Societal Attitudes: To evaluate baseline attitudes among non-disabled populations—including healthcare providers, educators, employers, and the general public—toward persons with physical and mental impairments.
• Evaluating Educational and Rehabilitation Programs: To serve as an objective pre- and post-intervention instrument for evaluating whether disability simulation activities, coursework, direct contact initiatives, or vocational rehabilitation interventions produce statistically significant attitudinal improvements.
• Exploring Correlates of Disability Perception: To investigate how demographic markers (e.g., chronological age, sex, socioeconomic status, educational attainment) and personality dimensions (e.g., authoritarianism, self-concept, tolerance for ambiguity, anxiety) correlate with discriminatory attitudes.
• Self-Perception Among Persons with Disabilities: To assess the degree to which individuals with acquired or congenital disabilities internalize dominant societal stereotypes or endorse self-actualizing, egalitarian views of their peer group.

By framing attitudes along a spectrum ranging from “perceived difference/inferiority” to “perceived similarity/equality,” Yuker and his colleagues provided researchers with a tool to empirically investigate institutional barriers and the underlying psychosocial mechanisms that drive disability discrimination in employment, healthcare access, and community living.

5. Psychological Construct

The fundamental psychological construct measured by the ATDP Form-0 is the multidimensional disposition or generalized cognitive, affective, and conative orientation toward disabled individuals. Within the Yuker et al. psychometric framework, the core construct hinges on the perceived similarity versus perceived difference paradigm. This paradigm posits that negative societal attitudes are rooted in the categorical assumption that disabled persons are fundamentally “different” from non-disabled persons in emotional stability, personality structure, social capabilities, and basic human drives. Conversely, positive societal attitudes reflect the conviction that persons with disabilities share identical human needs, psychological characteristics, emotional responses, and social rights, differing only in specific, circumscribed functional or physiological dimensions.

The Hypothesized Domains

In its original Form-0 design, the 20 items were theoretically divided into two complementary conceptual domains:

• Perceived Characteristics of Persons with Disabilities (10 items): This dimension addresses cognitive assumptions regarding the personality traits, emotional resilience, social habits, and temperament of disabled people. Negative endorsements within this domain reflect stereotypes depicting disabled individuals as inherently sensitive, pity-seeking, socially withdrawn, bitter, or dependent. For example, items assess whether respondents view disabled individuals as chronically preoccupied with their condition or possessive of distinctive personality abnormalities.
• Perceived Social Treatment of Persons with Disabilities (10 items): This dimension measures behavioral and policy orientations regarding how society should engage with, accommodate, or structure environments for disabled individuals. Negative endorsements reflect segregationist, protective, or paternalistic approaches—such as advocating for sheltered conditions, specialized exemptions from normal social expectations, or lowered behavioral standards. Positive orientations within this domain reflect integrationist, egalitarian expectations, emphasizing equal rights, normal accountability, and equitable social competition.

Subsequent psychometric examinations indicated that individuals rarely differentiate cleanly between these theoretical domains when responding to the items. Instead, the items coalesce into a global latent continuum reflecting overall acceptance versus rejection, integration versus paternalism, and perceived common humanity versus perceived deviance.

6. Theoretical Framework

The construction of the ATDP Form-0 is firmly rooted in social psychological theories of prejudice, attitude formation, and stigma. Specifically, the scale integrates principles from several foundational paradigms:

Barker and Wright’s Somatopsychology

The theoretical cornerstone of the ATDP originates in the somatopsychological framework formulated by Roger Barker, Beatrice Wright, and Lee Meyerson in the 1940s and 1950s. Barker and Wright posited that physical disability operates primarily as a social stimulus rather than a purely biological impairment. The psychological ramifications of a disability are largely mediated by the meanings, values, and status gradients assigned to the body by society. When society attributes inferior social value to individuals who deviate from somatic ideals, a process of “spread” occurs, wherein impairment in a specific functional domain is erroneously overgeneralized to mean an impairment of the whole person, including their intellect, emotional maturity, and moral competence.

Allport’s Contact Hypothesis and Social Distance

The scale integrates Gordon Allport’s classic theories from The Nature of Prejudice (1954) and Emory Bogardus’s work on social distance. Allport posited that prejudice is maintained through cognitive categorization, perceptual contrast, and lack of equal-status intergroup contact. The ATDP operationalizes social distance by examining the degree to which respondents desire segregation or special status for disabled persons versus welcoming them into normative academic, vocational, and interpersonal spheres. Under Allport’s Contact Hypothesis, structured, cooperative contact between disabled and non-disabled peers on equal footing is predicted to shift scores toward the positive pole of the ATDP continuum.

Goffman’s Stigma and Deviance Theory

Concurrently emerging with Erving Goffman’s sociometric work on stigma (1963), the ATDP Form-0 measures the extent to which a non-disabled observer assigns a “spoiled identity” to a person with an impairment. Goffman noted that society categorizes individuals into structural identities; those with observable somatic or behavioral variations are reduced in social perception from whole and usual persons to tainted, discounted ones. The ATDP items directly capture these stigmatizing attitudes by assessing whether the disabled individual is viewed as needing isolation, distinct standards, or constant patronizing supervision.

7. Validity

The construct, criterion-related, and convergent validity of the ATDP Form-0 has been extensively demonstrated through numerous empirical investigations over several decades.

Construct and Criterion Validity

Initial validation studies conducted by Yuker, Block, and Campbell (1960) established that the ATDP Form-0 successfully differentiates between groups known to hold disparate levels of contact, empathy, and professional experience with disabled populations. For example, healthcare professionals and special educators who completed specialized training exhibited significantly higher (more positive/egalitarian) ATDP scores than members of the general public without disability experience. Furthermore, longitudinal assessments established that interventions specifically designed to increase knowledge and equal-status interpersonal contact with disabled individuals yielded statistically significant increases in ATDP composite scores, corroborating the scale’s sensitivity to real-world attitudinal change.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Correlational research examining the ATDP alongside personality and ideological inventories has provided strong convergent validity evidence:

• Authoritarianism: Studies assessing the relationship between the ATDP and the California F-Scale consistently demonstrated moderate negative correlations (typically ranging from r = -.30 to r = -.50). Higher levels of authoritarian personality, characterized by rigid cognitive style, intolerance of ambiguity, and punitive moralism, correlate significantly with less favorable attitudes toward disabled individuals.
• Ethnocentrism and Social Prejudice: ATDP scores correlate inversely with generalized prejudice scales, confirming that negative attitudes toward disability share common variance with broader outgroup biases, racism, and ethnocentrism.
• Social Desirability: Discriminant validity evaluations measuring ATDP scores against Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scales have produced small, often nonsignificant correlations (generally r < .20), demonstrating that the scale does not simply capture a generalized tendency to give socially approved responses.

Ordering-Theoretic and Structural Analyses

In a seminal psychometric investigation, Antonak (1979) conducted an ordering-theoretic analysis of the ATDP Form-0 on a heterogeneous sample of 278 university students aged 20 to 51 years. Antonak’s study examined nonlinear, hierarchical interrelationships among the scale items. The ordering-theoretic model revealed that attitudes toward disabled persons are structured hierarchically: endorsement of more advanced, egalitarian items requires prior endorsement of fundamental acceptance items. This research proved that the scale possesses strong structural validity while demonstrating that attitude expression follows deterministic, cumulative patterns across populations.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the ATDP Form-0 has been documented across dozens of independent empirical investigations utilizing university undergraduates, rehabilitation personnel, schoolteachers, and community adults.

Internal Consistency and Split-Half Equivalence

Because the ATDP Form-0 was developed prior to the ubiquity of modern computerized implementations of Cronbach’s alpha, initial indices of internal consistency primarily utilized the split-half technique corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. Across multiple independent standardization samples reported by Yuker et al. (1960, 1970):

• Split-Half Reliability: Coefficients consistently ranged between .75 and .85 across various adult cohorts.
• Cronbach’s Alpha: Subsequent retrospective and contemporary analyses of the 20-item instrument have reported internal consistency coefficients ranging from α = .76 to .83, demonstrating acceptable to good internal reliability for a brief 20-item attitudinal metric.
• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): Standardized testing across normative groups yielded an average SEM of 6.45, providing a clear statistical boundary for establishing confidence intervals around individual composite scores.

Test-Retest Stability

The temporal stability of the ATDP Form-0 has been confirmed across administration intervals ranging from two weeks to several months:

• Test-Retest Stability Coefficients: Stability coefficients reported across diverse baseline control groups yielded a median test-retest correlation of .73 (with empirical studies reporting values spanning from .68 to .84).
• Temporal Invariance: In the absence of deliberate educational interventions, experiential immersion, or traumatic somatic injury, baseline scores demonstrate remarkable temporal durability, confirming that the ATDP Form-0 captures a stable psychological trait rather than a fleeting situational state.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the ATDP Form-0 has been the subject of extensive empirical scrutiny, methodological debate, and psychometric evolution. When Yuker, Block, and Campbell (1960) developed the scale, they postulated a bifactorial taxonomy dividing the 20 items into equal 10-item dimensions: perceived Characteristics and perceived Treatment.

Exploratory Factor Analytic Findings

Subsequent empirical factor analyses—both by the original test authors (Yuker, Block, & Young, 1970) and by independent researchers—consistently failed to confirm the empirical separation of the “Characteristics” and “Treatment” domains. When exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations was performed on the 20 items, results revealed:

• Predominance of a General Factor: A dominant first unrotated factor regularly accounts for a substantial proportion of the total item variance (often exceeding 25% to 35% of total variance), with an eigenvalue clearly surpassing all subsequent factors, strongly indicating essential unidimensionality.
• Subscale Instability: The extraction of multi-factor solutions (often identifying between three to five minor factors, such as “Emotional Stability,” “Social Segregation,” “Work Equality,” and “Expecting Special Privilege”) resulted in unstable factor structures that failed to replicate across independent samples of college students, healthcare workers, and rehabilitation clients.
• Item Reduction to 15 Items: Due to low communalities and cross-loadings observed on five of the original 20 items, several subsequent psychometric studies isolated a refined 15-item variant of the Form-0, which exhibited superior internal consistency and cleaner factor loadings ranging from .42 to .71 on a single overarching “Global Attitude” construct.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Conclusions

Modern psychometric critiques and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have further confirmed that models specifying a single higher-order latent factor provide an adequate and parsimonious fit to the data, whereas multi-trait correlated models often suffer from poor parameter identification or excessively high factor intercorrelations (r > .80). Consequently, psychometricians and researchers uniformly recommend scoring and interpreting the ATDP Form-0 as a unidimensional composite measure, explicitly cautioning against the computation or clinical interpretation of distinct “Characteristics” and “Treatment” subscores.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The ATDP Form-0 is a standardized self-report rating scale structured according to rigorous psychometric specifications:

• Instrument Name: Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale, Form-0 (ATDP-0)
• Test Type: Standardized self-report rating scale / Likert psychometric inventory
• Target Population: Adults aged 18 years and older (extensively validated with university students, healthcare personnel, rehabilitation workers, and general community populations)
• Administration Method: Paper-and-pencil self-administration (readily adapted for computer-assisted or web-based testing)
• Administration Time: Untimed self-paced administration; typically completed in 10 to 20 minutes
• Item Quantity: 20 items in the original Form-0 baseline instrument (reduced to 15 items in selected refined psychometric protocols)
• Response Format: 6-point forced-choice Likert continuum (without a neutral midpoint), formatted as:
  • +3: I agree very much
  • +2: I agree pretty much
  • +1: I agree a little
  • -1: I disagree a little
  • -2: I disagree pretty much
  • -3: I disagree very much
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Keying / Directionality: The instrument includes both positively and negatively worded statements to mitigate acquiescence response bias. Half the items are keyed such that agreement reflects perceived difference/paternalism (negative attitude), while the remaining items are keyed such that agreement reflects perceived similarity/equality (positive attitude).
  • Sign Reversal: Prior to composite summation, the operational scoring rules require researchers to reverse the algebraic signs of responses on designated negatively keyed items so that higher numerical values consistently represent more positive/egalitarian attitudes toward disabled persons.
  • Constant Addition (Zero-Elimination): Because raw scores contain negative and positive integers (-3 to +3), a scoring transformation is traditionally applied. The algebraic sum of all items is computed, and an arithmetic constant (typically +60 for the 20-item scale) is added to the resultant sum to eliminate negative totals, yielding an entirely positive composite score distribution.
  • Interpretation: Higher aggregate scores indicate positive, non-stigmatizing attitudes that view disabled persons as regular, equal human beings who share common needs and rights. Lower aggregate scores reflect attitudes highlighting perceived deviance, emotional vulnerability, social incompetence, and the need for segregated paternalism.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale Form-0 was developed and published in 1960 by Harold E. Yuker, J. Richard Block, and William J. Campbell under the auspices of Abilities, Inc. (later the Human Resources Center / National Center for Disability Services), located in Albertson, New York. Subsequent expanded variations (Form A and Form B, each consisting of 30 items) were introduced in 1966 and 1970.

Copyright and Usage Policy:

• The original psychometric monographs and test booklets were copyrighted by the Human Resources Center. Historically, research manuals and test forms were distributed for academic, educational, and clinical research upon request, often accompanied by minimal reproduction fees or nominal material costs.
• Researchers seeking to utilize the scale for scientific inquiry, academic dissertations, or formal evaluations are advised to consult the historical monographs published by the Human Resources Center or search holdings in academic archives (such as the Harold E. Yuker archives at Hofstra University).
• Commercial utilization, programmatic distribution, or incorporation of the proprietary item sets into proprietary psychological testing batteries requires formal clearance and written permission from the institutional successors of the Human Resources Center / Abilities, Inc.

12. References

All references conform to American Psychological Association (APA) 7th edition formatting:

• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
• Antonak, R. F. (1979). An ordering-theoretic analysis of attitudes toward disabled persons. Rehabilitation Psychology, 26(3), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090918
• Antonak, R. F. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. The Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 13(2), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1891/0047-2220.13.2.22
• Barker, R. G., Wright, B. A., Meyerson, L., & Gonick, M. R. (1953). Adjustment to physical handicap and illness: A survey of the social psychology of physique and disability (2nd ed., Bulletin 55). Social Science Research Council.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
• Yuker, H. E. (1986). The attitudes of attitudes toward disabled persons: A review of research with the ATDP. In Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 3–14). Springer Publishing Company.
• Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons (Human Resources Study No. 5). Human Resources Foundation.
• Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Young, J. H. (1970). The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons (Human Resources Study No. 7). Human Resources Center.

13. Items of the Scale